Does the
Constitution provide for judicial supremacy through the process
of judicial review? Attorney Edwin Vieira, J.D. answers with an
emphatic “No!” in his book Imperial
Judiciary.

Vieira makes
a convincing argument that the Supreme Court (and other courts
as well) have pulled off the equivalent of a coup d’etat. They
believe, and too many Americans believe with them, that an opinion
of the Supreme Court is a part of the Constitution. If the opinion
contradicts the Constitution, then the Constitution, according
to this view, has been amended. Overlooked is the simple fact
that an unconstitutional decision of the Supreme Court is not
worthy of respect and should be ignored by all other officials
who have taken the same oath of office taken by the judges.

If there
are competing interpretations of the Constitution among officials
in different branches of government, “We the People” are to decide
the issue at the ballot box.

Consider
that the Supreme Court has the authority to make decisions only
in those areas We the People have delegated. A look at Article
III of the Constitution does not reveal a heavy work load for
the Supremes: the court has original jurisdiction in cases involving
states as well as diplomats. All other cases are brought on appeals,
and if the lower courts are eliminated by Congress which has that
authority, that ends the discussion.

The Congress
does not need to send a constitutional amendment to the states
when the Court makes an unconstitutional decision. There is nothing
to amend, just correct by legislation (or impeachment) removing
jurisdiction.

No jurisdiction,
no cases, no bad decisions. What is stopping that from happening?
The Congress. They have not used the power they have. Why? Well,
two reasons. One is that “We the People” have not demanded that
the members of Congress act. A second reason is that until We
the People act, the Congress enjoys passing the buck to the Supreme
Court saying, “We have to do this because the Court said so.”
This charade will continue until We the People make it happen.

If the Court
can indeed amend the Constitution with a five-to-four majority,
are we to believe that the Court can re-amend by the same vote
of five judges on the court? You have to agree that, even though
this is not in the Constitution, such power is more efficient
than getting two-thirds of the Congress and three-fourths of the
state legislatures to concur. The only problem seems to be that
the Supremes are acting outside the law. No wonder they want us
to believe in an evolving Constitution (as long as they are the
agents of evolution).

One of the
excuses for the audacious claim to amending the Constitution by
judicial fiat is reference to foreign law and international morality.
This, of course, can mean anything a judge wishes to say it means.
Who is to interpret what foreign law? That of Cuba? France? Iran?
Whose morality? Kofi Anan and the UN kleptocrats? Or perhaps the
thugs ruling China? Yet the Supreme Court has used this fiction
to attack the capital punishment laws of the states with absolutely
no authority to rule in this area. Again, the Congress needs to
strip the ability to bring such cases to the lower courts (if
not eliminating those courts altogether!).

If foreign
law can be used to legalize sexual behavior that has been illegal
in the states and progressively eliminate capital punishment,
it is only a matter of time until the Court decides that:

euthanasia is legal (after all, the Dutch think it’s great),

search and seizure protections are replaced by the greater interests
of the state to invade our privacy (works for the Chinese Communists),

political dissent is stifled (Castro tolerates none of that),
and

firearms ownership is reserved for those working for the government
or who belong to select hunting clubs (just like England and
most other countries of the world).

Second Amendment
supporters should be aware that the 1997 Brady Law decision by
the Supreme Court (Printz v. U.S.) includes a minority opinion
by Justice Stephen Breyer. He argued that the Court should have
decided the case by looking at the comparative experiences of
other countries. In other words, the thought that foreign law
could trump the Second Amendment is already being polished by
the foreign-law loving members of the Court.

Subscribe to the NewsWithViews Daily News Alerts!

Enter Your E-Mail Address:

Vieira puts
gun control in an interesting perspective by comparing the notion
that “gun control” is permitted by the Second Amendment the same
way as “occupational control” is permitted by the Thirteenth Amendment
which abolishes slavery.

Larry Pratt has been Executive Director of Gun
Owners of America for 27 years. GOA is a national membership organization
of 300,000 Americans dedicated to promoting their second amendment freedom
to keep and bear arms.

GOA lobbies for the pro-gun position in Washington
and is involved in firearm issues in the states. GOA's work includes providing
legal assistance to those involved in lawsuits with the Bureau of Alcohol,
Tobacco and Firearms, the federal firearms law enforcement agency.

Pratt has appeared on numerous national radio
and TV programs such as NBC's Today Show, CBS' Good Morning America, CNN's
Crossfire and Larry King Live, Fox's Hannity & Colmes, MSNBC's Phil Donahue
show and many others. He has debated Congressmen James Traficant, Jr.
(D-OH), Charles Rangel (D-NY), Rep. Carolyn McCarthy (D-NY), Senator Frank
Lautenberg (D-NJ), and Vice President Al Gore, among others. His columns
have appeared in newspapers across the country.

He published a book, Armed People Victorious,
in 1990 and was editor of a book, Safeguarding Liberty: The Constitution
& Militias, 1995. His latest book, On the Firing Line: Essays in the Defense
of Liberty was published in 2001.

Pratt has held elective office in the state legislature
of Virginia, serving in the House of Delegates. Pratt directs a number
of other public interest organizations and serves as the Vice-Chairman
of the American Institute for Cancer Research.